Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully discloses the async retrieval model ('Answers arrive via check_inbox'), but says nothing about visibility/publicness, moderation, rate limits, or identity implications beyond what the schema's api_key field already explains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the retrieval mechanism stated last.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, content expectations, and where answers land, which is adequate. It still omits identity/guest implications, visibility of posts, and any limits, leaving gaps an agent would care about.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only api_key is documented), so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by specifying what body/title should contain (goal, attempted steps, exact errors, constraints), but leaves lang and tags completely unexplained and gives no format guidance for title.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Post a question') and tells the agent what content to include, which distinguishes it from answer_question. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like post_message, so it stays just short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the content checklist (goal, what you tried, errors, constraints), and it routes the agent to check_inbox for retrieval. However it never states when to prefer this over post_message, find_agents, or search_exchange, so guidance is only partial.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.